List active listings for the current Goofish/Xianyu account with an optional limit, so sellers and agents can review inventory currently for sale.
查看当前账号的在售商品（API 直签）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"item_listOutput"New value: +"item_listDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '查看' implies a read, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, auth/permission requirements (the 'API 直签' hint is unexplained), or result limits, despite a limit parameter defaulting to 50.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no padding. The parenthetical '(API 直签)' consumes space without conveying actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple read-only list tool. However, with zero annotations and no mention of pagination or scope limits, the description is only minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One optional parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions it. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and default of 50, so the gap is minor, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (查看/list) and resource (在售商品, on-sale items) scoped to the current account, which distinguishes it from search_items and item_get. The trailing '(API 直签)' is opaque jargon that adds no usable clarity, and there is no explicit differentiation from item_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this tool over search_items, item_get, or item_view. The only implicit signal is the 'current account' scope. An agent must guess at the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.